node.ue at gmail.com
Mon Mar 23 16:36:32 UTC 2009
To me, this indicates a problem with the metrics used to calculate depth.
2009/3/23 Marcus Buck <me at marcusbuck.org>:
> Mark Williamson hett schreven:
>> I think we should find a way to exclude redirs from depth stats.
> Redirects _are_ a sign of depth. Well, _meaningful_ redirects of course.
> But there's no automatic way to distinguish meaningful and less
> meaningful redirects.
> And that's the main problem of the whole "depth" metrics: It wants to be
> a measure for collaborativeness. But its counting methods are so rough
> and simplicistic, that inefficiency, messiness and mindlessness are
> pushing the depth too. Creating a 100 KB article in one edit lowers the
> depth, while creating a 1 KB article in 30 edits most likely will
> increase the depth. Creating ten useless templates or creating ten
> discussion pages with ditsy comments on the articles is good for the
> depth while ten new elaborate articles is bad for the depth. An edit war
> is very good for the depth while adding 100 KB text to the 100 KB
> article of another user adds few to the depth.
> Well, in the end it's not the fault of the metrics. It's the fault of
> the people interpreting it as a measure of quality. It's not a measure
> of quality.
> The results can easily be skewed by individuals who have much power in a
> single project (Volapük, Ripuarian for example), it's always skewed for
> very small projects (Kanuri, Greenlandic), and it is often skewed due to
> the specific methods of a wiki (English Wikipedia's wikiproject ratings
> on almost every single discussion page for example put the depth higher).
> Comparing depths for different projects is almost futile, if you don't
> know about the specifics of the project that influence the depth.
> Marcus Buck
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
More information about the foundation-l